Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Some mechanical control methods (e.g., mowing), used in combination with herbicides, can be a very effective technique to control perennial species. For example, mowing perennial plants followed sequentially by treating the plant regrowth with a systemic herbicide often would improve the efficacy of the herbicide compared to herbicide only treatment. • Cultural Methods. These methods would involve manipulating habitat to increase pest mortality by reducing its suitability to the pest. Cultural methods could include water-level manipulation, mulching, winter cover crops, changing planting dates to minimize pest impact, prescribed burning (facilitate revegetation, increase herbicide efficacy, and remove litter to assist in emergence of desirable species), flaming with propane torches, trap crops, crop rotations that would include non-susceptible crops, moisture management, addition of beneficial insect habitat, reducing clutter, proper trash disposal, planting or seeding desirable species to shade or outcompete invasive plants, applying fertilizer to enhance desirable vegetation, prescriptive grazing, and other habitat alterations. • Biological Control Agents. Classical biological control would involve the deliberate introduction and management of natural enemies (parasites, predators, or pathogens) to reduce pest populations. Many of the most ecologically or economically damaging pest species in the United States originated in foreign countries. These newly introduced pests, which are free from natural enemies found in their country or region of origin, may have a competitive advantage over cultivated and native species. This competitive advantage often allows introduced species to flourish, and they may cause widespread economic damage to crops or out compete and displace native vegetation. Once the introduced pest species population reaches a certain level, traditional methods of pest management may be cost-prohibitive or impractical. Biological controls typically are used when these pest populations have become so widespread that eradication or effective control would be difficult or no longer practical. Biological control has advantages as well as disadvantages. Benefits would include reducing pesticide usage, host specificity for target pests, long-term self-perpetuating control, low cost/acre, capacity for searching and locating hosts, synchronizing biological control agents to hosts’ life cycles, and the unlikelihood that hosts will develop resistance to agents. Disadvantages would include the following: limited availability of agents from their native lands, the dependence of control on target species density, slow rate at which control occurs, biotype matching, the difficulty and expense of conflicts over control of the target pest, and host specificity when host populations are low. A reduction in target species populations from biological controls is typically a slow process, and efficacy can be highly variable. It may not work well in a particular area although it does work well in other areas. Biological control agents would require specific environmental conditions to survive over time. Some of these conditions are understood; whereas, others are only partially understood or not at all. Biological control agents will not completely eradicate a target pest. When using biological control agents, residual levels of the target pest typically are expected; the agent population level or survival would be dependent upon the density of its host. After the pest population decreases, the population of the biological control agent would decrease correspondingly. This is a natural cycle. Some pest populations (e.g., invasive plants) would tend to persist for several years after a G-6 Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan biological control agent becomes established due to seed reserves in the soil, inefficiencies in the agents search behavior, and the natural lag in population buildup of the agent. The full range of pest groups potentially found on refuge lands and waters would include diseases, invertebrates, vertebrates and invasive plants (most common group). Often it is assumed that biological control would address many if not most of these pest problems. There are several well-documented success stories of biological control of invasive weed species in the Pacific Northwest including Mediterranean sage, St. Johnswort (Klamath weed) and tansy ragwort. Emerging success stories include Dalmatian toadflax, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and yellow star thistle. In Hawai‘i, it would include banana poka and Eurythrina gall wasps. However, historically, each new introduction of a biological control agent in the United States has only about a 30% success rate (Coombs et al. 2004). Refer to Coombs et al. (2004) for the status of biological control agents for invasive plants in the Pacific Northwest. Introduced species without desirable close relatives in the United States would generally be selected as biological controls. Natural enemies that are restricted to one or a few closely related plants in their country of origin are targeted as biological controls (Center et al. 1997, Hasan and Ayres 1990). The refuge staff would ensure introduced agents are approved by the applicable authorities. Except for a small number of formulated biological control products registered by EPA under FIFRA, most biological control agents are regulated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS- PPQ). State departments of agriculture and, in some cases, county agricultural commissioners or weed districts, have additional approval authority. Federal permits (USDA-APHIS-PPQ Form 526) are required to import biocontrols agents from another state. Form 526 may be obtained by writing: or USDA-APHIS-PPQ Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support 4700 River Road, Unit 113 Riverdale, MD 20737 through the internet at URL address: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/plantpest_howtoapply.shtml The Service strongly supports the development, and legal and responsible use of appropriate, safe, and effective biological control agents for nuisance and non-indigenous or pest species. State and county agriculture departments may also be sources for biological control agents or they may have information about where biological control agents may be obtained. Commercial sources should have an Application and Permit to Move Live Plant Pests and Noxious Weeds (USDA-PPQ Form 226 USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Biological Assessment and Taxonomic Support, 4700 River Road, Unit 113, Riverdale, MD 20737) to release specific biological control agents in a state and/or county. Furthermore, certification regarding the biological control agent’s identity (genus, specific epithet, sub-species and variety) and purity (e.g., parasite free, pathogen free, and biotic and abiotic contaminants) should be specified in purchase orders. Appendix G. Integrated Pest Management G-7
Page 1 and 2:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hakala
Page 7 and 8:
Executive Summary Executive Summary
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary Hakalau Forest Na
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Re
Page 17 and 18:
Page 20 and 21:
vi Hakalau Forest National Wildlife
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1-1. Refuge vicinity. Chapte
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 1-2. HFU location. Chapter 1
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 1-3. KFU location. Chapter 1
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59:
Chapter 2. Refuge Management Direct
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
3.5.2 Kona Forest Unit Contaminants
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Chapter 4. Refuge Biology and Habit
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Species, Species Group, or Habitat
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Grasslands Hakalau Forest National
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Figure 4-6. Central windward study
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
4.5.1 ‘I‘iwi (Vestiaria coccine
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
4.8.5 Mollusks Hakalau Forest Natio
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
4.9.13 Phyllostegia velutina Hakala
Page 204 and 205:
4.9.16 Silene hawaiiensis Hakalau F
Page 206 and 207:
Scientific Name Hakalau Forest Nati
Page 208 and 209:
Scientific Name Hakalau Forest Nati
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Horses (Equus caballus caballus) Ha
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 267 and 268:
Chapter 5. Social S an nd Economic
Page 269 and 270:
Figure 5-2. 5 HFU ad dministrativ v
Page 271 and 272:
Figure 5-3. 5 KFU ad dministrativ v
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
5.2.3 Camping Hakalau Forest Nation
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Kona Forest Unit Hakalau Forest Nat
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
5.3.6 Refuge Contribution Hakalau F
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295:
Appendices Above: Nēnē/John De Me
Page 298 and 299:
Critical Habitat Hakalau Forest Nat
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Critical Habitat Life Year First Fa
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Genus Species Hawaiian/Common Name
Page 320 and 321:
Genus Species Hawaiian/Common Name
Page 322 and 323:
3x3 Code Genus Species Syn Status I
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 355 and 356:
Use: Wildlife Observation and Photo
Page 357 and 358:
Availability of Resources: Hakalau
Page 359 and 360:
Wildlife Photography: Hakalau Fores
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Public Review and Comment: Hakalau
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):
Page 375 and 376:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
� Surveys: Scientific inventory o
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388:
References Cited: Hakalau Forest Na
Page 391 and 392:
Permits Hakalau Forest National Wil
Page 393 and 394:
Attachment 2 Study title: Fiscal ye
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Use: University of Hawai‘i Field
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409:
References Cited: Hakalau Forest Na
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Activity 5-year intervals: 2015, 20
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Activity 5-year intervals: 2015, 20
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Re
Page 456 and 457: Comments or suggestions: Hakalau Fo
Page 460 and 461: Natural Processes (biotic and abiot
Page 468 and 469: Table 4-2. Resources of Concern. Ot
Page 470 and 471: Other Benefiting Species Life Histo
Page 484 and 485: 6.5 Record Keeping 6.5.1 Labels and
Page 488 and 489: 7.2.1 Environmental exposure Hakala
Page 494 and 495: 7.2.3 Assumptions for ecological ri
Page 518 and 519: Table CP.1 Pesticide Name Trade Nam
Page 524: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Re
Page 527 and 528:
Page 529 and 530:
Page 531 and 532:
Page 533 and 534:
Page 535 and 536:
Page 537 and 538:
Page 539 and 540:
Page 541 and 542:
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Page 547 and 548:
Page 549 and 550:
Page 551 and 552:
Page 553 and 554:
Page 555 and 556:
Date Acquired Hakalau Forest Nation
Page 557 and 558:
Page 559:
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S
show all

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?